netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/7] uio: add module owner to prevent inappropriate module unloading

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <520CFBE0.5070006@linutronix.de>
Date:	Thu, 15 Aug 2013 18:03:44 +0200
From:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:	Benedikt Spranger <b.spranger@...utronix.de>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexander Frank <Alexander.Frank@...rspaecher.com>,
	"Hans J. Koch" <hjk@...sjkoch.de>,
	Holger Dengler <dengler@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] uio: add module owner to prevent inappropriate module
 unloading

On 08/15/2013 05:55 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> But that's a "platform" device, for a resource that is described as not
> going away.
> 
> If this is really a mfd device, then make your uio driver a mfd driver,
> not a platform driver for a resource that isn't under your control.

As you described it later yourself: You have the same problem if you
manually unbind the platform_device from the driver while the device
node is open.

>> If you look now at uio_write() then you will notice that it will
>> deference idev->info->irqcontrol but once the device is gone the memory
>> starting at info is gone, not to mention the code behind irqcontrol.
> 
> It sounds like the wrong uio driver is binding to this device, fix the
> uio driver and you should be fine, right?

For this to happen you would need a refcount in uio-core which learns
that the device is gone and does not invoke any callbacks because the
device is gone. Something like you have in USB where you return 0 on
reads from ttyUSB after someone pulled the cable.

> A module reference count will not "save" you from a device going away,
> only a code chunk going away.  That is why no other subsystem has this
> type of thing.  If you dynamically remove the mfd device, but not remove
> the module (i.e. through the sysfs files to do that), then you would
> still have this same problem, right?

Yes, I think so.

> There's a reason the driver core doesn't deal with module reference
> counts, it's not the proper thing for devices.  So I'm not willing to
> add it to the UIO code either, as it's not the correct thing for it.

okay.

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html